Talk:Amendment to the Kodiak National Rights Act (663)

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/13/2024 10:09 PM

Tabled by Edmund Maltravers, Jr., MGA, as a Government Sponsored bill. An act to establish abortion rights in Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Amendment_to_the_Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_(663) Voting is set for January 22. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Amendment to the Kodiak National Rights Act (663) ACTION by the General Assembly on ## MONTH ###. ## AYE, ## NAY, ## ABSTAIN. An act to establish abortion rights in Kodiak. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/13/2024 10:09 PM

@Assembly Member, debate for this bill is now open. NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:11 PM This bill makes since. Mothers should have a chance to abort if they want to. Giving guidance as well will help. I belive this should become a law. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:16 PM Foetuses 22 weeks and older are able to live outside the womb. I cannot in good conscious say we should permit non-medical abortion at that late stage Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:18 PM 24 weeks seems a bit long. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:18 PM I also wish that the president or the author would include the text as it is at present for us to compare Braughn F. G. Kryos

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 01/13/2024 10:18 PM

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/13/2024 10:18 PM

I can certainly do so. The current text reads: 2.1 - Repeals the The Abortion Act (Inter). 2.2 - Legalizes abortion:

  2.2.1 – Abortion is defined as the termination of an unborn fetus.
  2.2.2 – A fetus is defined as the unborn and developing body within the mother’s body.
  2.2.3 – This article establishes legal protections to life of the fetus after the beginning of the Fetal period of development set at a minimum of 9 weeks post conception.
  2.2.4 – Termination of the fetus during the Fetal period shall be considered only after medical review by a state certified OB-GYN to determine that the health of the mother is at an elevated risk, the fetus suffers from abnormal development, is the result of a non-consensual encounter, or is identified as the carrier of a transmitted disease.
  2.2.5 – Stability of the parents will be evaluated by a state certified social worker prior to the birth of the fetus.   If the evaluator determines the parents are unable to provide for the safety and health of the unborn fetus, the state reserves the right to place the child into the care of Child Protective Services under the Ministry of Social Services.   Furthermore, if the evaluator uncovers evidence that meets criteria of the above paragraph, they may recommend the termination of the pregnancy.

Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:25 PM so the change is from 9 weeks to no limits NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:25 PM yep Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:26 PM I'm not seeing a benefit from this bill. The current parameters seem sufficient. Paul Mores - Kruitezia — 01/13/2024 10:27 PM Same here. At 9 weeks, I think the mom would be able to decide whether to abort the baby or not. NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:27 PM What if they just realized they didn't want the baby after all? Though, thats a low chance Should we turn it down? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/13/2024 10:28 PM I would like to add an amendment:

-For when after 24 weeks in case of a sudden medical emergency for a women. 24 week period shall be waived. This includes miscarages.

I feel that needs to be clarified in the bill NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:28 PM Smart Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:28 PM a miscarriage isn't an abortion its not a medical procedure NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:28 PM What? I never knew... Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/13/2024 10:28 PM but it is confused for it sometimes in other countries Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:29 PM lay people's confusions aren't the purview of legal text Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:29 PM Is there a reason to focus on 24 weeks? That's 8 6 months, just in case. NSlover — 01/13/2024 10:29 PM geez Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:29 PM 24 weeks is 6 months Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:30 PM In some jurisdictions, a miscarriage is equivalent for medical purposes to an abortion. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/13/2024 10:30 PM I have seen times when a women gets a miscarage and there prosicuted for it or doctors don't perform work on a women because of the issue I just feel I rather have an amendment that says it clearly Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:31 PM ((( OOC: My mother had a miscarriage, and it was medically defined as an abortion even though the fetus was already dead. ))) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/13/2024 10:32 PM ((There is a case in Ohio when a Woman had a miscarriage and she is being prosicuted for it. My mom had a miscarrage too, imaging if she is in jail for that)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:32 PM the ohio woman wasn't prosecuted for abortion It was for abuse of a corpse we should avoid allowing the general hysteria inform actual facts Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:35 PM Anyways, enough of the discussion about the mystical land known as "Ohio".

About this bill itself, I am fully in favour (as long as Mr. Fala's amendment regarding miscarriages is added), and although I personally believe that this bill does not go far enough, 24 weeks is far better than 9. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:35 PM while it is generally accepted clinically that the difference between "spontaneous abortion" and "induced abortion" is the clinical difference between "miscarriage" and "abortion", the problem is not legalising one form or another, but having a specific and clear definition of what is being legalised or forbidden this bill does not make the limit 24 weeks it makes the limit "birth" Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:36 PM In that case, excellent Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/13/2024 10:36 PM I want to say, I support this amendment Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:37 PM What harm comes from adding the miscarriage clause? In the event that it is irrelevant, then it simply sits there, and in the event that there is confusion, then it acts to preserve the rights of the mother, which is what this bill is all about. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:38 PM because it shouldn't be a miscarriage claus - it shoudl be a clear clause of definitions that's the chief issue is a misunderstanding of the purpose of a clause and miscommunicating what is being legislated saying "mis carriages are ok" without clearly defining either miscarriage or abortion is poor form, and if we can clearly define what the act leglises, then we don't need a special "miscarriage clause" Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/13/2024 10:40 PM Perhaps the amendment could instead read "sudden medical emergency of any kind", instead of specifically naming miscarriages? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 10:40 PM I mean, it clearly doesn't matter in this particular instance because it legalises all abortion up to labor and it would be unclear if poisoning an infant already undergoing birth is technically abortion or murder Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 11:14 PM Do you think the amendment could revolve around 12 weeks instead of 24? An abortion should be done as soon as possible, and most recommend up to 12 weeks to make this decision without consultation - consultation could be provided if the woman requests it, however. After the 12 weeks can pose increasing risk to the mother the further the pregnancy advances. So, I wonder if we could still use the tone of 2.23 and 2.24, but for after 12 weeks in that stricter approval should be made before the abortion can proceed. Thoughts? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 11:20 PM I really want to make clear the bill does not revolve around 24 weeks. It simply obligates a consultation at 24 weeks. Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 11:39 PM It very clearly revolves around 24 weeks. I'm suggesting 12. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 11:44 PM If the result of the legislation is "abortion is legal until birth" as it is written here, then the week we force women to seek a consult is meaningless The legislation states abortion is legal. Then states it is legal without limit until 24 weeks, and the only obligation put in pregnancies after 24 weeks is a consult with an OB gyn. The revolution of this act is abortion is legal in all cases at all times. It's a distraction to pretend 24 weeks is important to the function of this law Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 11:50 PM The current legislation is pro-life with caveat. The presented amendment wants to allow up to 24 weeks without restriction. 12 weeks is more sensible. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 11:52 PM Wrong. The current legislation allows abortion after nine weeks only in case of medical importance Urisko [KWP] — 01/13/2024 11:53 PM No it does not. It says the fetus is protected up to 9 weeks. If an abortion is sought within that 9 weeks, consultation has to be sought and only under certain guidelines in 2.24. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 11:53 PM Please read 2.2.4 It states after that period not during Urisko [KWP] — 01/14/2024 12:09 AM No it does not. "This article establishes legal protections to life of the fetus after the beginning of the Fetal period of development set at a minimum of 9 weeks post conception." The Fetal period is at a minimum 9 weeks post conception, which mean pro-life protection is after this 9 weeks. However, "[t]ermination of the fetus during the Fetal period shall be considered only after medical review by a state certified OB-GYN to determine that the health of the mother is at an elevated risk, the fetus suffers from abnormal development, is the result of a non-consensual encounter, or is identified as the carrier of a transmitted disease." These are conditions to allow an abortion. No where is the woman allowed an abortion because she asks. So, Fetal period, 9 weeks, you 'could' get an abortion, but it must meet these conditions. After 9 weeks, there is no wording saying abortion is allowed as the "article establishes legal protections to life of the fetus after the beginning of the Fetal period..." This is a pro-life bill. The amendment frees this, but I would recommend that it be within 12 weeks that an abortion can take place no questions asked, but consultation can be given if requested, but after the 12 weeks, due to growing risk, should be protected in a similar manner as 2.2.4. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/14/2024 2:25 AM Exactly. That's the point I'm making. This Amendment doesn't support a pro life stance. it immediately makes it legal in all instances. The 24 week clause ONLY demands a consult. It does nothing to place limits on how or why an abortion would take place.

This act, as presented, makes "I don't want this kid, end it" as far up to and including 40 weeks and water broken. messing about with what 'consult' means for finding an appointment and its legal stance as enforceable (which it may not be given the prior parts of the bill), this is a total about face of the standing legislation. the standing set is that abortion is legal to 9 weeks and regulated to only extreme factors after.

This current bill is "its always legal all the time for any reason. the end"

These aren't compatible nor comparable positions, its not a "well the only problem is the week question." because this bill is a total rewrite of the idea behind abortion rights. Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 01/14/2024 3:16 AM As a clarifying question for 2.3.1 in the amendment - is that the authors intent? Or is there an intention that the consultation rejects anything that isn't, for example, considered a major health risk for the mother and other stipulations recorded in the present 2.2.4 clause. I agree that the wording, if that is the intent, is not clear enough.

In that case why not just change the current timeframe in the currentclause 2.2.3 if that is the actual change, I'm of the opinion that 2.2.4 in the current act should remain and I do think the current wording change proposed doesn't obligate that guidance be followed.

2.3.2 of course is a different matter and would make it legal at any point without medical review. Which would be a major change from the current 2.2.4 clause. While the intent is clear, the wording leaves much to interpretation should we go down this path - such as how the state will determine/agree that the pregnancy was due to non-consensual encounters without some other intervening investigation (e.g, police, medical examination post encounter, etc).

I would support an increase from 9 weeks. I am however leaning towards retaining a limitation of abortion after this time period for medical reasons and other existing reasons. With that said, non-consent is an additional complication I will need to take some time to hear other members arguments. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/14/2024 4:40 AM ((24 weeks is merely the latest the UK - where I live - recommends you have an abortion. Therefore I thought that more appropriate. But I am not opposed putting it back a bit. )) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/14/2024 4:59 AM ((the proposal currently allows abortion without reason for an entire pregnancy)) Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/17/2024 8:03 PM As there has been no discussion for over three days, I would like to move for a vote, unless people wish to continue the discussion. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/17/2024 9:22 PM

Any seconds? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/17/2024 9:23 PM I am still vehemently opposed to this massively under qualified change. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/17/2024 9:24 PM

Your opposition is noted. I would like to call @Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr to re-visit this bill, please. I do not believe the issues raised by the general debate have been sufficiently answered NSlover — 01/17/2024 9:26 PM I second Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/17/2024 9:26 PM

I will hold off on voting until a response from Dr. Maltravers is apparent. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/18/2024 5:53 AM ((I will begin to look through the questions tonight. My apologies for my bad form, I have been incredibly busy irl with some stuff)) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/18/2024 6:32 AM ((24 weeks was chosen as, per my research, the NHS - the health service for me - stated 24 weeks was the latest recommended date for an abortion)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 6:33 AM ((sure, but just be aware, as it is written, it does not forbid non-medical abortion at 24 weeks. It merely states that the OBGYN may 'provide guidance' - whatever that legally is)) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/18/2024 6:35 AM I should probably make that clearer, as my intention was to have it read as that after 24 weeks you MUST seek medical advice, rather than should. That's a mistake on my part. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 6:36 AM it needs to be clear that induced abortion prior to 24 weeks is legal, and induced abortion 24 weeks gestation and longer is illegal with listed exceptions. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/18/2024 6:36 AM ((I will amend it to read as much once I have the time, just atm I cannot. But I will reword it)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 6:36 AM no worries Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/18/2024 7:07 AM Mr President, I have clarified the language within the bill ((hopefully)). Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 10:40 PM I still think it should be 12 weeks to do whatever you wish, but after that will need consultation to determine if an abortion is appropriate. You can still seek consultation within the 12 weeks if that is your choice, of course. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 10:47 PM I think 12 full weeks is a reasonable point, it being the full first trimester, not to mention that by this time you are likely to have had two major scans by then - making a decision to voluntarily terminate should probably be taken within those 3 months. That said, I can see an argument for some leeway as well for appointments and unlucky timing between previous menstruation and eventual fertilisation, so perhaps 14 full weeks would be a good compromise on that front.

I am very discomforted by the idea of non-medical abortion after 20 weeks just given that premature births at this age frequently live when met with proper medical care. Though again, I am in support of a wide range of legal medically acceptable reasons for termination at 20 and beyond. I'm just against voluntary termination from that point forward Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 10:52 PM And that's totally fair. I think given that we have established a rigorous medical system with the appropriate training and certification that most of the time doctors would be able to refrain from abortions if they feel this baby is very far along in the process and is completely healthy. So, rather than having a hard stop, as there will always be exceptions to the rule, leaving it open ended would probably be more accommodating for edge cases. However, would there be a strong consensus that 28 weeks and beyond should absolutely be illegal? Perhaps "really close" to birth is where we should hardline it? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 10:53 PM No, there are too many occasions where late term spontaneous foetal death is too dangerous for a mother for the procedure to ever be entirely illegal For example, if the mother is in a traumatic accident, even if the foetus is initially unharmed, hormonal changes may create cirucmstances where the foetus prematurely begins to 'complete' some tasks (such as closing the heart-to-mother connection) prior to birth, causing the foetus to (in this unlucky circumstance) asphyxiate in utero. it would be irresponsible to make the abortion of this pregancy illegal as the foetus is far too along in the process not to be a danger to the health of the mother. even if circumstance would otherwise have, with clairvoyance of the incident, meant the foetus could have been delivered properly prior to the incident among a plethora of other possible medical emergencies which would obligate abortion of a pregancy late stage. Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 10:59 PM And that's why I think there should be no illegal zone for this. Just that consultation must be pursued after 12 weeks and the rigor of our system should be able to make best decisions from there to say yea or nay to an abortion. The woman may get a second opinion, however. But that is as far as it should go through proper channels. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 11:01 PM my suggestion was that voluntary abortion should be legal through 14 weeks (to account for common irregularities in the dating process) and then it should be illegal from 15 onward, but with a widely interpretable permission for voluntary abortion on the basis of medical grounds. Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 11:03 PM Right 14, not 12. Sorry. When you say illegal...what do you mean? Since it is legal to get an abortion, but you must have a doctor consult with you and, based on their objective medical opinion, you are either clear for an abortion are not. If not cleared, you are allowed a second opinion, but that is all. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 11:03 PM I'll try to be more clear using an analogy its illegal to have a prescription drug like Morphine without a prescription the drug as a controlled substance is illegal to possess at all times but for that bureaucratic caveat thusly, the abortion would be illegal to attempt but for a "prescription" for one by a medical specialist Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 11:05 PM Okay. I'm good with that. I support your proposal. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 11:06 PM Much obliged, sir. I am in favour of the original authors existing exceptions, that being termination for health of the mother, unviability of the foetus, genetic or other abnormalities of the foetus, and pregnancy as a result of sexual assault One other question that isn't resolved by this change though would be - what happens if a medical specialist actively commits fraud to perform what would be illegal abortions under the protections of doctor-patient privacy I think even just simple reporting (how many performed per specialist per quarter) would likely be able to identify the majority of irregularities Urisko [KWP] — 01/18/2024 11:35 PM We could possibly mention this in this amendment, but I believe the Hospital Transparency Act ensures monitoring of fraudulent activity and penalties for that activity. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/18/2024 11:36 PM perhaps just a line mentioning that abortions stats are explicitly included as per the HT Act Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/19/2024 2:34 AM If the assembly would prefer that the bar is lowered to 14 [weeks] I am willing to adopt it. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/19/2024 9:07 PM

I am happy to accept any motions to vote now. Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 01/19/2024 9:17 PM I would support 14 weeks as a reasonable compromise, particularly given it is a greater period than the present limit. Klaus Mikaelson [KSA] — 01/21/2024 12:49 AM I personally see no need to lower it to 14 Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 01/21/2024 7:01 AM I am somewhat in agreement with Mr Mikaelson on this, I think that 24 [weeks] is adequate. Nevertheless, I also do concede that 14 is more preferable. Therefore I have amended it thus. Klaus Mikaelson [KSA] — 01/21/2024 8:39 PM Shame Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/21/2024 8:40 PM

Is there any further discussion before this bill heads to vote tomorrow? Liam Harrison [KWP] — 01/22/2024 1:12 AM I agree with Mr. Mikaelson as well, but even if it is 14 weeks it is still far better than the current situation. A step of progress is better than no progress at all EasyPoll BOT

— 01/22/2024 10:09 PM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the Amendment to the Kodiak National Rights Act (663)?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [10 • 53%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [7 • 37%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 11%] 19 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (13 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 007dfdab Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/22/2024 10:09 PM

@Assembly Member, voting for this proposal has begun and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/24/2024 2:43 PM

@Assembly Member, only one more day to vote on this proposal, if you have not already. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 10:43 AM

With 10 ayes, 7 nays, and 2 abstains, the Amendment to the Kodiak National Rights Act (663) is passed by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly.